Written during the height of Victorian society in England, H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine combined a scathing review of a severe and dangerous class division while providing an adventurous story that fully justifies the novel’s place as a literary classic. Drawing from logic concerning the then perplexing concept of the fourth dimension of time, Wells manages to weave around yet easily explain overly complex details of a fictional technology to avoid pseudoscience saturating his thematic narrative. George Pal’s 1960 Hollywood adaptation, however, shares very little of the nuance that made the original work timeless. Though the silver screen version of The Time Machine suffers from its dual responsibility of representing its source material and turning a box office profit, the latter of which it succeeded quite easily at, it too manages to insert a set of themes that reflect the volatile political atmosphere of the time and the interminable fear of communism. When compared simultaneously, the thematic differences between the two works can most easily be identified through the origin and relationship of the supporting characters the Eloi and the Morlocks.
H.G. Wells makes it unequivocally clear that the Eloi and Morlocks of his novel had divided long before the arrival of the Time Traveler due to two human classes adapting into beings more suited for either a life of hard toil or one of leisure and luxury. The cause of this divergence? Several millennia of subjugation of one class under another. Wells explains this take on species adaption “So, in the end, above ground you must have the Haves, pursuing pleasure and comfort and beauty, and below ground the Have-nots, the Workers getting continually adapted to the conditions of their labour” (Wells 40). Historically, this view of persistent change in species stems from theories of Darwinism and evolution, both of which were beginning to establish a significant following in the Victorian public, but the reason for their prominent inclusion by Wells was their extension into views on social classes. Darwinian theories explaining the inherent superiority of certain species over others was used to justify the suppression of impoverished workers and their families by wealthy elites. Wells viewed this “Social Darwinism” as potentially harmful to the future of mankind and was concerned about the sinister implications a continuation of this outlook might hold for both classes. In fact, the brutal enslavement of the people making up Victorian England’s lowest class was already severely damaging to mankind in the eyes of Wells, evidenced by explanations for Social Darwinism provided by fervent evolutionist Herbert Spencer, the polymath who coined the phrase “Survival of the Fittest.” Spencer held no quarter when describing the place of the destitute masses, “…these unthinking, though well-meaning, men advocate an interference that not only stops the purifying process (of man as a species), but … absolutely encourages the multiplication of the reckless and incompetent by offering them an unfailing provision, and discourages the multiplication of the competent and provident” (Spencer, 1851). Clearly, the most popular of theorists supporting the application of Social Darwinism, Spencer lead the movement for justifying a relentless two-class system. Wells’ concerns were voiced through the fictional, theoretical conclusion to hundreds of thousands of years of classism in two resulting species that barely retained any qualities of humanity.
While his storytelling predecessor was predisposed with taking on the rampant abuse of power by English elites, arguably one of the most pressing problems of the era, George Pal was faced with an entirely different social climate that he was to present in with his take on the story. 1960’s America was on a high of patriotism and materialistic success. The country was still fresh from emerging victorious in two global conflicts in which sacrifice and horror were common, yet still rested precariously on the edge of another war, this time with a nuclear superpower. The threat of a nuclear holocaust was far too real, and a historical precedent for violence had already been established for the 20th century. America was scared, and as the writers of History.com state, “The ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation had a great impact on American domestic life. People built bomb shelters in their backyards, they practiced attack drills in schools and other places” ("Cold War History"). The fear of such destruction was clearly the foremost concern of the American people. Social class division was hardly an important issue in the United Sates at this time, if it could have been considered a problem at all, and Pal elected to alter the origin of the Eloi and Morlocks from a class struggle because of this. Instead, this version of The Time Machine elects to attribute the divergence of mankind to the more tangible fear of a fallout of an earth-scorching war. George, the movie’s version of the Time Traveler, had travelled from 1900 into three future world wars where he had learned his best friend Fillby had died, seen his house explode in a firebombing of London, and watched his city vaporize from a form of nuclear attack all before he had ever reached his destination of the year 802,701. It was here he learned from the expositional golden rings the fate of his species after the Earth had become uninhabitable: “Some chose to take refuge in the great caverns and find a new way of life far below the Earth’s surfaces, the rest of us decided to take our chances in the sunlight” (Pal, 1960). Though the adaption of the Eloi and the Morlocks takes the same course in the movie as it did in the book, the reason is entirely different. War is what drove humans to the edge of what we consider mankind and sparked the devolution into an incompetent, unfeeling species and a brutal, inhuman animal. This dismal portrayal of the future of man is fueled by anti-war sentiment. In writing for Literature in Film Quarterly, Roger Berger makes the connection between fact and future “The Time Machine could be one more nuclear warning movie. But the film continues to explore this ‘post-holocaust’ society, which I understand as an allegory of our own society, and its here that Pal’s to nuclear war can be seen” (Berger, 1989). By exploring the result of a fully destructive nuclear war, Pal makes apparent the unfortunate end game of humanity more tangible in an attempt to stir an affront to conflict through the division of the Eloi and Morlocks into enemies.
Each creator furthers their attempts at warning the audience of either class division or communism through the relationship the Eloi and Morlocks share. Wells is far more concerned with making the two appear as different halves of the same whole, thus supporting his attempt to placate the horrendous classism between two groups of people. Both the Eloi and the Morlocks are portrayed as curious, both display grace in unique ways, but one maintains the regrettable status of becoming the source of food while the other becomes a more vicious predator that the Time Traveler begins to enjoy killing. In the movie adaptation of The Time Machine, a clear line is drawn between friend and foe; the time travelling protagonist sides decisively with the summer dress wearing, human appearing Eloi while defending them from the brutish enemy in the Morlocks. Pal’s handling of the Morlocks as the clearly evil antagonist is a result of a fear of the Other- the communist. Perhaps the only fear that loomed larger than the threat of nuclear war over America in the 1960’s was the threat of communism emerging from within. The terror shared by the entire population is shown to have manifested in legislation and popular inclinations. While exploring the many steps taken by America and her populace to limit the spread of communism from within, Ellen Schrecker, a decorated professor of American history with extensive experience in studying McCarthyism, summarizes the rapid animosity that grew against the communist party, “Once the Cold War began, and the Soviet Union became America’s main enemy, the party was transformed from an unpopular political group into a threat to the nation’s security” (Schrecker, 2004). Policies were developed to prosecute and imprison followers of the communist movement, and the uneasiness over this new enemy was reflected in the transformation of the Morlocks from passive predator into cunning manipulator preying on a weak population.
Again, the Morlocks’ position over the Eloi indicates the purpose of the work in Wells’s far more equal portrayal of what was once the lowest class of person. Wells was simply demonstrating the dangers of Social Darwinism to his readers, and to do so the Morlocks, while feared, were only truly shown as predators to the Eloi and not enemies, a distinction that, though minute, is extremely important. The Time Traveler, though partial to the Eloi, talks himself through understanding how a descendant of man could descend into what appears to be cannibalism, “I tried to look at the thing in a scientific spirit. After all, they were less human and more remote than our cannibal ancestors of three or four thousand years ago. And the intelligence that would have made this state of things a torment had gone” (Wells 50). The implications of a predator/prey relationship that Wells is making are clear, and when compared to the theories being presented of Social Darwinism at the time, the parallels appear. In Helen Lewis’ words, as she writes for The Journal of Psychohistory, “Darwin’s theory of evolution was extended to human societies as Social Darwinism argued that humans, like plants and animals, compete in their struggle for survival. In layman’s language: the law of the jungle rules” (Lewis, 2016). The references to a faux food chain relationship between people in Lewis’ words perfectly fit into Wells’ description of the connection between Eloi and Morlock.
Though both works of fiction tell an invigorating and enthralling story through different mediums, they differ wildly in the purpose behind their storytelling. H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine takes the horrors of class division head on, ensuring that the reader is made well aware of the potential consequences of a continually neglecting society. George Pal’s movie warns of a dangerous future, too, but one born from the fire and fury of centuries of war and violence as he pleads with the audience to find and alternative to all out destruction despite a seemingly vicious enemy. The Eloi and Morlocks remain background characters to the adventures of the Time Traveler himself, but provide excellent canvases on which the artists of these works can bestow the themes of their labor.
Pal, George, director. The Time Machine. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1960.
Wells, Herbert G. The Time Machine. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
ERAU HON 250
Dr. Lear
February 12, 2018